All Episodes
July 4, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:02:02
Episode 1047 Scott Adams: That "Dark" Speech at Mt. Rushmore That Looked Unifying to You

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: "Bad, evil people" hit a nerve on the left Lawlessness and wanting America's destruction The news is straight up propaganda, manipulating us Black National Anthem before NFL games Self-Defense is becoming illegal Scott's Law of Self-Defense ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum hey everybody come on in come Come on in! We've got things to talk about!
Yeah! Is today the 4th of July?
Oh yeah it is!
Happy 4th of July!
Do you know the last time I knew what day of the week it was or what time of the month it was?
It was a long time ago.
Or, as I said to Christina just yesterday, can you remind me when we're supposed to get married?
I have this calendar problem.
It's a lifelong problem.
But anyway, I know why you're here.
Yep.
Yep.
It's for all the fun and the simultaneous sip.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything, including the coronavirus, better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Mmm.
Hmmm.
Here's a question for you just to blow your mind.
You want your mind blown?
Have you noticed that it seems like when there's one crisis in the news and that's the focus of the news, all the other problems go away?
Have you noticed that?
Do you see a lot of people complaining about climate change?
Not so much.
That's a little lesson for you on how subjective your experience is.
Because if we did not have a coronavirus, and we did not have whatever the protests are about, we would have the same amount of fear about something else.
Your fear would just be transported into a new vehicle.
And, you know, we have this fresh new fear, ah, coronavirus, we don't have to talk about climate change for a while.
But climate change will be back.
It will be the most important thing in the world again someday as soon as we get past this.
Alright, let's check to see how our prediction and suggestion records look.
In the beginning of the coronavirus, who told you that maybe we should move the restaurants outside into the streets for the summer?
Probably me. And you see restaurants all over the country moving into the streets and outside.
Who told you that it would be great to have outdoor movie theaters again?
Probably I'm the first person who told you that.
And now Walmart is transforming 160 of its parking lots into summer outdoor movie theaters.
Yay! Who was...
You know that I told you to close travel a week before the President did from China.
You know that I told you the experts were lying to you about masks the first time I heard it.
But here's some more.
Remember I told you that hydroxychloroquine, whether it worked or not, was a good risk management decision.
That still looks like it's right.
I would say this latest study out of Detroit, the one that's on the news that says that hydroxychloroquine works, I would say it's a little early for that.
If you're relying on that study to say, well, it's over now, it looks like it works, that's too early.
The odds of that study being debunked in the future Probably over 75%.
So whether or not hydroxychloroquine works or does not work, this latest study that says it works will almost certainly be debunked.
But that doesn't tell you whether it works or not.
That's the world we're in.
But in terms of a risk management decision, I think it already looks like it was strong because I doubt it's hurting anybody.
Here's a question that was asked.
How many people died because the news treated hydroxychloroquine like poison because President Trump was promoting it?
Think about that.
You might actually be able to do the math and figure out how many people were killed by the illegitimate news business.
Right? You could actually do the math.
Now your estimate would be, you know, subject to lots of uncertainty, but let me put a number on it.
If it's true this latest study is true that it cut the mortality rate in half, which would be a big claim, I'm not sure that that will stand up over time, but let's say it did.
This is the way the news would report the story.
If this were reversed, And President Trump is the only one who was saying, don't use it.
And the mainstream media had been saying, yes, use it, it's worth the risk.
If this had been reversed, the story would be this.
If the president had gone the other way, we might have saved 20,000 American lives.
Right? Because, you know, over 100, what, 120,000 people have died in the United States from coronavirus.
If you could cut that in half...
Now, it wouldn't get to every person, obviously.
There's a supply problem and blah, blah, blah.
So you wouldn't necessarily get to use the medication on everybody.
So it's not like you'd cut the entire death rate in half.
But let's say it would have made a difference.
We're talking about 20,000 people that were killed by the news.
Think about it. Think about the fact That if the hydroxychloroquine study holds up, and again, I would say that's probably not going to happen, but let's say that hydroxychloroquine does turn out to be good and useful.
That's all we'd be talking about.
We wouldn't be talking about anything except how the president had killed 20,000 people with bad advice.
But He's probably saved 20,000 people if they took it, and otherwise they might not have.
Whereas the news may have killed 20,000 people.
But you won't see that in the news because the news does not indict the news.
So it's a neat little situation.
The only thing better would be a doctor.
Because if you're a doctor and you make a mistake, you could just bury it.
It's like, well, I'll just bury this mistake.
But if you're the news, you can kill 20,000 people with intentional fake news and just don't report it.
You just don't report it.
It's like it didn't happen.
That's convenient. So what else did I get right at the very beginning?
What was one of the first things I told you?
That's right, vitamin D. Do you remember that I told you at the very beginning Make sure you get some sun and vitamin D because it's going to make a difference.
That was a generic statement based on the fact that vitamin D is just generally good for you in your immune system.
But did I not also, before you heard it anywhere, say, it looks to me that there's this weird correlation, which I just noticed in the wild.
I was just looking at the situation and said, what is it about this group of people that are susceptible?
And so I started Googling.
Because I had a hypothesis, and it was that...
So I said to myself first, huh, African American people seem to be getting coronavirus worse.
Google African American vitamin D. Yup, they get less of it.
For obvious reasons, their skin color makes it a little harder to absorb.
So I think that's the reason.
Actually, I don't know if that's the reason, but it would be one of them.
And then I said, huh...
What about the countries that are doing worse?
And I googled it. And what about people who have diabetes?
And I googled it. And basically the correlation really held.
So today there's a report that there was a study that found out that vitamin D is very highly correlated with the death rate of coronavirus.
Now that doesn't necessarily mean that if you boosted your vitamin D you'd do better.
But all common sense says yes.
So again, the correlation looks really strong based on this one study, which could be wrong tomorrow when there's another study.
But looks like I was right about that too.
So if you're keeping score, if you had done everything that the idiot cartoonist told you to do about your health, you would be way ahead of what the news told you, what the experts told you, and all of your doctors.
That's just a fact.
Sorry. You know, I'm not going to tell you that I could do this the next time there's a crisis.
It doesn't mean that I'm going to be right every single time again.
But it's starting to look like a pattern, doesn't it?
If you had trusted me on most things, you wouldn't be right every time, of course.
But you'd be way ahead.
Does anybody know what the net deaths are for this year?
So one of the things I predicted, which I think I'm going to be wrong about, but maybe not.
I don't know. I want to see the numbers.
Does it seem to you that the number Net deaths in the United States is being suppressed.
Because you know that the protests are being suppressed, right?
So the news is no longer showing the news.
The news is becoming a decision maker for what you can see.
It's sort of turned into that.
So we don't see the protests because obviously they're trying to reduce the impact of the protests.
So the news is not...
So much reporting it as making the news.
They're creating the situation by actively trying to suppress the protests just by not covering them.
But likewise, it seems to me that the number of net deaths for this part of the year would be the most prominent thing you would see, right?
Don't you think you should be seeing just about every day on the news, if this were a normal year, Here's how many deaths we would have, on average, this many per month.
But, because it was the coronavirus year, the number is 20,000 a week higher than normal.
Or something.
Or whatever the number is.
Ask yourself why you don't see that number every day.
Ask yourself why you don't see that number every day.
It's because we're being manipulated.
So, Whoever makes these decisions, I don't think it's like one person who's deciding the whole news cycle, but the people who decide what you see have decided that you shouldn't see that.
Yes, I may be using the wrong term.
Somebody in the comments is saying, do excess deaths, not net deaths.
That's probably the better term.
So excess deaths, meaning compared to the normal baseline, how many people died that you would not have expected, In a normal year, and then you assume that most of them are coronavirus, but not necessarily.
Yeah, so you do see the number of deaths total for coronavirus, but you don't see excess deaths every day.
Is that because it's high or because it's low?
Ask yourself this.
Why don't you know the most important question in the country or the world, really?
What's the most important question in the world?
Are excess deaths more or less than there would be?
Is there any excess deaths at all, I guess?
You don't even know.
You don't even know.
It's the most important number in the world.
Does anybody know?
Of course. It's a gatherable number, obviously.
What's up with that? Every time you see something like that that's now reported, you have to ask yourself, is that a decision?
Did somebody say, we don't want people to know this?
Maybe. Don't know.
So Trump gave a speech last night.
Probably you heard. And the first thing I did was I tried to watch the speech without the benefit of any commentary.
So I like to watch it and say to myself, all right, what is his base going to think of it?
And then I try to put myself in the other head to say, okay, what is the other team going to think of this?
Now, the other team is easy.
You just say, oh, they're going to take stuff out of context and say it's dark and evil and racist.
Right? Kind of easy.
You didn't have to actually hear the speech to know what the criticism would be.
Am I right? You did not need to hear the speech To write any of the criticisms that appear today.
Look at the criticisms.
You tell me that you could not have written all of the criticisms before he gave the speech, because they're sort of generic.
Two pundits have so far used the word dark.
I wrote about this in Winn-Bigley, and I talked about it in the 2016 cycle, that there was a persuader who I speculated was Robert Cialdini himself, The greatest persuader or expert who wrote the book Influence and Persuasion.
So he would be considered sort of the gold standard for influencers.
And When everybody on the Democrat side in 2016 started using the word dark about Trump's speech at the convention, I said, there it is.
That's the mark. That word dark does not come from normal political people.
This looks like an outside advisor because that's a weapons-grade persuasion that you just don't see from the regular political advisors.
And it turns out that Cialdini refused to...
He had a no comment when asked if it was him.
Nobody would no comment on that unless it was actually them.
Who in the world would, if you said, did you give this specific piece of advice to the president, who in the world would say, no comment?
You would only say that if you did.
If you didn't, you'd say, no, that wasn't me.
Because why would you, unless you were just like the worst liar in the world or something.
Alright, so We think that dark was probably given to the Democrats back in 2016.
I've only seen it twice this year.
Looks like they're trotting it out to see if it'll work, but I don't know.
It doesn't seem to have any purchase yet.
So what I picked out was that Trump used the phrase bad, evil people to talk about the ones who are causing trouble and taking down statues that were not even Confederate statues, etc.
And I said, ah, there it is.
That's the quote that CNN will take out of context.
And sure enough, was it Marianne Williamson?
So she was the first one to take it out of context and say this.
In her tweet, she said about the president's speech, he is positing all those who don't agree with him as evil people, who are enemies of America, Nothing like that happened.
If you watch the speech, the president's words were extremely clear.
We're all Americans unifying.
We're all Americans.
And some troublemakers were knocking down statues and he's condemning them.
The exact opposite of what Marianne Williams says is that he's positing that all those who don't agree with him are evil people.
Not even close to anything like that happened in the speech.
Nothing close to that.
Literally the direct opposite of this.
But if somebody didn't see the speech, what would they think?
If you hadn't seen the speech, you'd think, well, you know, maybe he said something like that.
No, he said exactly the opposite of that.
So here's the other thing I was looking for.
I was looking for whether the president hit a nerve.
In other words, everything is a giant test of, how about this message?
How about this statement? How about the way I framed this?
Everything in the campaign is a continuous test to see if you got the right message that hit a nerve.
And sometimes you can't tell if you hit a nerve unless you see the reaction of the people you're trying to move.
And let me read this reaction to you.
From Aaron Rupar, who is a notable anti-Trumper.
So this was his comment about Trump's speech.
He said, Trump offers some remarkably overheated rhetoric.
Interesting. Alright, so the first thing you should note is that Rupar is calling the president's rhetoric overheated.
Alright, just hold that thought.
And he said, and he's quoting the president, The president said there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance.
This left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution.
All right, so Rupar is pointing out that this is overheated rhetoric, and of the things he wanted to point out for a criticism, he wanted to point out that this was going too far to say that the left was trying to demand absolute allegiance And that they were trying to overthrow the American Revolution.
Here's what I think.
I think that hit a nerve.
You know, all of this is very subjective, but I'm going to tell you that based on all of my lifetime of experience with persuasion, I think Aaron Rupar is telling us directly, please don't do more of this.
That's what it feels like.
It feels like it's true enough that Aaron Rupar is trying to brush it back and say, uh, no, this is bad.
Uh, better not say that anymore.
It feels like he knows a nerve has been hit.
Now, of course, there's a big difference between saying there are some troublemakers versus saying it's all the Democrats.
They're all troublemakers.
There's a difference. But if the Democrats are sort of supporting the team that are the small group of troublemakers, you can sell the argument pretty well.
You can sell the argument that they're all the same on the left as long as the left won't condemn them and does support them in other actions.
Would you say that the left does support the small group of people who are taking down statues and whatever?
Do they support them?
Do they even support the looters?
Yeah, they do.
They even support the looters by being very vocal about not wanting force being used, you know, being anti-police in a sense.
I think that Trump hit a nerve.
Now, I'm going to tell you some things that I don't think he did right in a moment, but on this one, because remember, everything's an A-B test.
You're not trying to hit winners.
You're not trying to hit home runs every time.
You're trying to get that one That goes beep, beep, beep.
This is the one. This is the one.
And I think Aaron Rupar, who reads the room well, in other words, he understands his side of things and is involved in politics.
So I would say that his censor is probably pretty well tuned.
That's not to say I agree with what he says.
I'm just saying that he's sensitive to the situation.
He can read the room. And I think he's afraid of this attack.
Because I feel like he thinks it's too close.
So, did you notice that something seemed to happen in the last 48 hours?
When the President basically, I forget his exact term for Black Lives Matter, but he basically said it was a violent hate group or something.
I think he said a hate group.
You saw that I tweeted that Black Lives Matter is a A violent, racist group.
I got 10,000 retweets.
I got 10,000 retweets from people.
Not all of them were anonymous, right?
So Twitter isn't just anonymous people.
I got 10,000 retweets calling Black Lives Matter a violent, racist group.
Do you know how many retweets I get on a normal retweet that does pretty well?
A thousand? It was about probably five to ten times bigger response on something that you wouldn't expect people to even stick their head above the foxhole on.
I mean, I thought I had a good chance of getting canceled just for tweeting it.
It was controversial enough that I thought it might be the end of my career the day I tweeted it.
And 10,000 people retweeted that.
So, it is obvious now that this attack is hitting a nerve.
I think that the left understands they went too far, and I think they know that they overshot the mark.
And I think they know that their brand is now lawlessness and support for the complete destruction of the United States.
Now, is that overheated rhetoric for me To say that the left wants the complete destruction of the United States.
Well, actually not.
That's the problem.
The problem is that it's not overheated rhetoric.
Because Black Lives Matter, and their supporters and Antifa especially, they say directly they want to dismantle the entire system.
You can't tweak the patriarchy.
It's not a tweak fix.
It's a dismantle.
And they use the words. Now, if Black Lives Matter uses the words, dismantle the system, and they have demonized white people quite directly as the racist and white supremacist and slave owners, is it too far to say that they would seek retribution the moment that they felt safe in doing it and hunting down people like me?
Did you see what happened when I said in public that That Trump supporters might be hunted down and you could be dead in a year if Biden wins.
It wasn't because Biden and regular Democrats were going to hunt down anybody.
I'm not suggesting that an ordinary middle-of-the-road Democrat is going to look for revenge against Republicans or anything.
No, no. All they have to do Is give cover for the groups that will, which they're doing quite plainly right now.
You don't have to wonder if most Democrats will give cover for the few Democrats who are causing the trouble because we're watching it.
It's happening right in front of you.
You don't have to wonder how that would play out.
Of course they would. Would they do everything that they could do to protect Trump voters in a Biden administration?
No. No, there's no indication that they would lift a finger to protect anybody who wasn't their own team.
There's nothing that would indicate that's the case.
You've never heard one bit of rhetoric from the left that they would protect Trump voters, have you?
Have you ever heard one person on the left say, if I'm president, or even just the way I think things should be, is that people should leave Trump voters alone?
Have you heard anybody say it?
Anybody? One time?
A celebrity? Politician in the House, Senate, candidate for president.
Have you heard anybody on the left or even in the news say, you know people, we should not demonize regular Trump voters.
They just have a preference that's different from yours.
Have you ever heard it?
Not once.
That is approval.
There's no way that could be interpreted anything but approval.
So it's silent approval, but approval nonetheless.
So here's what I think happened.
The moment that the president and people like me, you know, less impact in my case, the moment that the president was willing to say in public directly that Black Lives Matter is a hate organization and we're going to put him in jail for knocking down our statues, 10-year prison sentence for knocking down, I guess, maybe a federal statue, I think that the left realized they overplayed the hand.
I don't think the left understood that people on the right are legitimately afraid because they've said it directly.
They want to dismantle the country.
If you want to dismantle the country, you are saying, I want to destroy everything.
Now, normally in a situation like this, I would say, no, no, no.
They don't want to destroy everything.
They just want a different system.
You know, transition to something that works better.
That's not what's happening.
The loudest voices in the Black Lives Matter don't want to transition anything.
They just want to blow it up.
There's no new plan.
Tell me if you've seen one.
Has somebody drawn up the way the government will look without all the systemic racism?
Have you seen that blueprint?
There is none. They only have a plan for destruction.
That's explicit. It's not an interpretation.
To prove me wrong, you just have to show me their plan for what it should look like when they're done.
If you can show me the plan of what it looks like when they're done, yeah, this is the world we're trying to build.
It would look a little bit more like this.
If that exists, well, then I'm certainly wrong.
But it doesn't.
It doesn't exist. And it won't exist because they're not in the building business.
They're in the destruction business.
So here's what I think happened.
I think that the Democrats realized they overplayed their hand and they're trying to walk it back without looking like they're walking it back.
So the more that any of you are willing to say that Black Lives Matter is a violent, racist organization with lots of people who have good intentions.
So when I talk about Black Lives Matter, it's a very diverse group, which is the good news, right?
The one good news about anything is that if you can get any diversity to agree on anything, maybe that's good, unless you're leading a revolution that you don't understand, which would be bad.
So lots of people within the movement are just well-meaning people who got caught up in something they didn't quite know what they were getting into.
How many people who are supporting and marching with Black Lives Matter How many of the protesters understand that?
Maybe none.
There's one group in the country, maybe the world, that you can criticize and nobody can fault you for it.
You can't make fun of people for their appearance, their ethnicity, their gender, and I don't suggest that you do.
I'm happy that those things are largely off the table.
But there's one group that we can all mock mercilessly, and I hope you'll join me in it.
It's young people. And the reason you can mock young people is because either you are one.
I mean, there are only two conditions if you're alive.
You either are a young person or you used to be one.
So you do have a right to mock young people because it's you.
You used to be one.
You know how smart you were when you were 20.
And you know how smart you were when you were 40, if you're 40 or over.
And it's not very close.
It might feel like it should be close when you're 20.
When you're 20, you're pretty sure you've got the context now.
You're like, alright, I'm as smart as I'll ever be, IQ-wise, which might actually be true.
But you don't know very much about context and framing and how much you've been manipulated and how you've been brainwashed your entire life, and it might take you another 10 years to figure it out.
So we have a revolution that's being led by, and I say this with love, our dumbest citizens on average.
Dumbest meaning young.
There's no ethnicity in what I'm saying.
I'm only talking about young and is always less informed than more experience.
It's just a fact of life.
So here we have a group of people who are leading this thing.
They went way too far.
They have convinced the people on the right that they mean it.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think there are any people on the right who are preparing to leave the country because they think that society itself will be ripped apart?
Yes. There are people on the right who are smart, and they're not crazy people whatsoever, who are planning to leave the country because they think that the left will actually become a violent mob that will destroy whatever is here.
And there's nothing that can stop it.
Now, I don't think that's the case.
I'm not in that camp. The left has gone so far that people are considering moving out of the country, and I'm not talking about the people who said, if Donald Trump is elected, I'll move to Canada.
None of that was serious.
I'm talking about people who are actually making plans to get their self the fuck out of this country because the Black Lives Matter people and the protesters in Antifa appear to be unstoppable If nobody's willing to stop them, and there doesn't seem to be a willingness to stop them.
Now, I don't agree with that.
I think things will far more likely just revert to something close to normal in a few months.
In my opinion, the only reason any of this is happening is a weird coincidence.
And the weird coincidence is that coronavirus made it necessary to wear masks at the same time that people wanted to protest Wouldn't it be convenient if you could wear a mask?
So if we did not have this weird mask coincidence, which is the weirdest coincidence, you have to wear a mask.
And by the way, you might be protesting.
Wouldn't that be convenient?
So it is by its nature something that would not be a long-term problem if we can contain it, which I think we will.
Which is why the news is now actively managing the protests to decrease them.
Let me ask you this.
If the people who ran the mainstream news, which of course is corrupt and nothing like news anymore, it's just fake news.
It's just straight up propaganda.
If the propagandists who do what looks like news, if they thought that showing the protests were good for their side, Wouldn't you see a lot more of it?
Have you noticed that they stopped coverage of the protests?
And doesn't your common sense say, if these protests were bad for Trump, I think we'd see a lot more of them.
Just a lot more footage and stuff.
So you're definitely being manipulated by the news.
Alright, if you didn't know that.
Here's a really good mind spinner.
So Ghislaine Maxwell, the co-conspirator with Epstein, as you know, got picked up.
And Alan Dershowitz wrote a fascinating article about that situation.
Now, of course, he used the situation to defend himself against allegations that he was with some young woman.
And if you've ever seen a One of the top lawyers of all time defend himself, it's really worth looking at.
It's worth looking at just to see how well he makes his argument.
It's just every time I read Dershowitz, I just go, oh wow, that was really well done.
Even if you don't like his point of view, you end up going, okay, that's really skillful.
He writes this article in which he is noting that a lot of the people who have testified, the young women who have these horrific stories of things that happened with Epstein and on the island, Dershowitz very persuasively points out that they have been What would you say?
Discovered to be liars at the highest level.
In other words, we know they made up stories about other people being on the island because you can check the record and you can know for sure that they weren't there when these witnesses were claiming it was all happening.
So Dershowitz's explanation of the witnesses being completely unreliable.
I mean, as unreliable as anything could be.
Let me tell you how unreliable it would be.
Imagine if you had a person who claimed he saw a murder on his front lawn.
Well, the first time it happened, you'd say, well, we don't see any signs of a murder, but we're going to treat this seriously because you reported a murder.
And then in the end, they say, all right, it looks like nobody got murdered on your lawn.
And then you call the police the next week and you say, another person got murdered on my lawn.
Well, maybe you take it seriously.
You say, that sounds a little familiar, but we'll check it out.
And again, nobody got murdered on the lawn.
Play back the video.
It's obvious there was nothing happening on the lawn.
The third time you call and say somebody just got murdered on my front lawn, what do the police say?
They say, well, maybe work it out yourself, right?
So if you've been caught in an exact lie of the type that is on the table, that is the lowest level of credibility you can have.
You're not just somebody who in some general way is undependable.
You're someone who is specifically undependable on this exact question, and it's been proven.
That's the lowest level of credibility you could actually have.
You can't get lower. You lie on this exact question.
And we know it. It's proven.
So Dershowitz makes the case that the witnesses, the sound, when you see them out of context, and by the way, I watched the Epstein movie on Netflix, which threw Dershowitz under the bus pretty hard with, you know, allegations against him in that film.
And Dershowitz tells the story of giving them all of the background information that was exculpatory, some of the same stuff he mentions in the article.
He gave it to Netflix, a complete defense that, in my opinion, is actually really strong.
I mean, really strong.
I wasn't there.
I don't know what happened.
I'll never know what happened.
But I'm just looking at the defense based on real facts that could be checked.
Facts you could check yourself.
He gave to Netflix and they didn't put it in the film.
They didn't put it in the film.
Think about that.
They threw Alan Dershowitz under the bus, accused him of being a sex criminal, and the accusers have a record, according to Dershowitz, Of being liars on this exact thing, accusing other people that we know for sure weren't there.
How do you not include that?
How do you not include that?
Really? What kind of world are you living in where the exculpatory information they just ignore, like it wasn't there?
So the level of evil that requires is just mind-boggling.
But anyway, I don't think that Ghislaine Maxwell is innocent by any means, but when you see Dershowitz set it up, say, well, basically his argument is this, that he's not saying anything about Maxwell because he doesn't know.
So he's saying, I don't know anything that she did.
I didn't observe anything wrong.
But here's the context.
All of the accusers have been proven liars.
On these very accusations.
I mean, this type of accusation, not the specific ones against her.
That's a really strong argument.
You know, there's no...
I can't even imagine a jury that could convict on...
That, unless video appears or something later.
Alright, so don't be surprised.
Don't be surprised if Ghislaine Maxwell does not get convicted of anything.
And the other possibility is apparently there was some kind of a plea deal when Epstein originally went to jail, I don't know, one of those times.
There's some kind of an existing plea deal that might give Maxwell immunity, but it's sort of untested.
She might have immunity.
She might not go to jail at all.
Think about that. Alright, here's the worst idea I've ever heard in my entire life.
They're going to play the Black National Anthem before the NFL games.
And then do the regular National Anthem prior.
Now, of course, one understands why they're doing it.
They're trying to do the best they can to satisfy not only their players, but their fans, and it's just a tough situation.
So I feel bad for the NFL because there's just no way to win.
They just don't have a winning play.
But I think they found the worst solution.
Because how do you feel if you are, let's say, a football watcher and you see an alternate national anthem?
The alternate national anthem.
Now, they're referring to it as a black national anthem, but let's take the black out.
You just heard there's an alternative national anthem for a subset of America.
How does that make you feel?
Does it make you feel like an American?
Now that there's two national anthems.
It doesn't matter if it's a black national anthem.
It could be the woman national anthem.
It could be the LGBTQ national anthem.
It doesn't matter what subset of Americans we're talking about.
This might be one of the worst ideas I've ever seen from a business.
I feel like the NFL is going to have the lowest ratings they'll ever have unless people are so starved for entertainment That they watch anyway.
I guess it's a wild card, because people are starved for entertainment, so maybe it'll be the highest ratings they've ever had.
But people might tune in 10 minutes after the game starts to not watch it.
Now, my personal feeling about it is I don't get worked up about symbols.
I don't care about flags and flag burnings.
I don't care about national anthems.
I don't care about kneeling, and I don't care about statues too much.
Just generally speaking, if you're talking about symbolism, just work it out.
Work it out among yourselves.
If there are Americans who care deeply about these symbols and they want to verbally mix it up with other people who have a different opinion, I'm just going to watch the show.
Wherever it comes out, statues yes, statues no.
I'm going to be fine with it either way.
I just can't get invested in something so ridiculous.
So personally, I'm not invested in any of it.
I don't think football is important.
I don't think it should be played.
By the way, I think football should be banned because of the head injuries, especially for children.
Maybe for adults you let them take the chance, but certainly I would ban football for children.
That's another story.
So I think the NFL is shooting themselves in the foot with this, but we'll see.
It could turn out to be brilliant.
We'll see. Here's something that's a worrisome trend.
Self-defense is starting to look illegal now.
Did you know that? Didn't you have a pretty good idea in your head what self-defense looked like and you thought you knew what it was?
It's starting to get murky and I'm worried that the realm of what we would call self-defense is shrinking so that the angry mobs can get at you a little bit better.
Let me give you an example.
So apparently, I don't have an update on this, but the last I knew, the McCloskeys, the couple who were the gun-wielding couple in their big house that they protected against the crowd, apparently they're still being considered for charges.
Are you kidding me?
They are still being considered for maybe being charged with a crime for simply having guns To at least have some defense against this crime.
Now, I don't know if it was because the wife pointed her gun.
Does that make a difference?
I'm not a lawyer, and maybe it varies by state.
But where exactly was the crime?
That was as self-defense-y as anything I've ever seen in my life.
They were lawyers, for God's sakes.
They knew what a crime is.
They're lawyers. They know what a crime is.
They weren't trying to commit a crime, that's for sure.
And then I heard another one today about, there's a question about what police should do or really what anybody should do.
Let's say the mob surrounds your car.
If the mob surrounds your car and they start breaking the windows and there's even somebody with a gun and you know they shot somebody in a car.
So it's like the worst, scariest situation.
But the mob is all around your car.
What can you do in self-defense?
Can you drive forward at the risk of hitting people when you know you would hit people?
Can you drive slowly?
Can you give them, like, warnings of, like, you know, sharp little moves forward to get them out of the way, but if he hits somebody, you're still liable and you go to jail?
Even the question of your car surrounded by people, you're not allowed to just drive through them, even if they're attacking your car.
And the fact that that's even a question, are you kidding me?
That's a question? Well, let me say, if somebody surrounds my car, I'm going to drive forward.
If there's somebody in front of my car, they will be killed or injured.
But I'm going to do it.
I'm not going to sit there with a crowd that's beating on my car and threatening me.
I'm going to drive forward.
And I'm going to take out anybody who's in front of me.
And I'm not going to even think twice about it.
I'm not even going to feel guilty about it.
I'm going to look in my rearview mirror and see brains spilled on the road behind me.
I'm not going to have a nightmare about that.
I'm not even going to have PTSD about that.
That's just me.
But let me say it again.
If you put me on a jury in this country, I am not going to convict anybody for what looks like self-defense.
Moreover, if it's a gray area, They're not going to be convicted by me.
Put me on a jury if it even looks a little bit self-defense-y in the context of these big crowds.
I'm not talking about a normal crime.
A normal crime, you have to look at each one individually.
But in the context of these protests, if somebody does something that's even arguably a little bit self-defense-y, they're good with me.
Good with me, because here's what I don't expect of my fellow citizens.
I don't expect you to be speed lawyers in an emergency.
You're probably not a lawyer, and if you were, you don't have much time to think.
I'm not going to ask you to be a legal scholar while a crowd is ascending on you.
If the crowd ascends on you, this is Scott's rule.
Let me put it out there. Are you ready?
This is Scott's Law.
I'm just making this up now.
Scott's Law says that if the crowd comes after you, there's nothing you can't do to defend yourself.
Got it? There's nothing you can't do to defend yourself if a crowd threatens you.
That's Scott's Law.
Put me on the jury. Let's say the crowd comes in and they're chanting things and they surround you.
And you pull out a machine gun and you kill 27 people.
Self-defense. Self-defense.
That's just me. You can do anything you want.
It's a free country so far.
A little less free than it used to be.
But if it's me, you could take out a machine gun and you could take care of the entire crowd that's threatening you.
And you could even finish off the people who are on the ground suffering.
And I would still, still say, looks like self-defense to me.
I don't know, because you don't know if those people on the ground were going to get up.
Right? I mean, you're not some expert on military or defense.
So if a civilian gets surrounded, that's just me.
I don't recommend that you do that because taking self-defense recommendations from me would be a certain way to get you killed.
I'm just telling you my attitude.
So I think we've reached the point where the slippery slope has met the wall.
Slippery slope... Meat wall.
We are all able to say now that Black Lives Matter is a violent, racist organization.
Now, by the way, that's not an opinion.
That's actually Black Lives Matter's self-branding.
You saw Hawk Newsome, head of the Black Lives...
He's a leader in Black Lives Matter in New York, which is obviously an important branch of Black Lives Matter.
And he said on television, I think he said it more than once recently, That they do not eschew violence.
That they'll be peaceful if they can get what they want, but if they can't get it through peace, violence is on the table.
And he said it directly.
I'm not interpreting, I'm not reading between the lines.
He said it directly. And guess what?
I agree with him.
The reason I know I'm not misinterpreting it is because it's a perfectly reasonable statement, which is, and here's the second part, as Hawke points out, that if you look at the history of this country, almost nothing ever changes without violence.
And it's a really smart thing to say.
Because it's true. This is one of those countries, and maybe it's just true everywhere, that until there's at least the threat of violence, things don't really change, you know, because you don't have to.
You can say, well, I'll deal with that tomorrow, and then don't.
So he's not wrong that if they feel that they're willing to do whatever it takes to get these changes, whatever they might be, that violence is on the table.
So if your organization leader says violence is on the table, you are a violent organization, and you can see individual members who are being violent.
Secondly, is it racist?
Of course it is. Of course it is.
It's totally racist.
Let me make an analogy for you.
Is Black Lives Matter equally concerned with other lives?
Obviously not. The whole point of Black Lives Matter is that it's a preference.
They're not looking for equality.
They're looking for at least the way the slogan is presented.
I'm not mind reading anybody's individual thoughts.
I'm saying that the way it's presented is that their problems are special because they came from a certain historical path.
I would argue that saying that black people's problems are special, whereas let's say some Hispanic American, Filipino American who was born into poverty, I guess their problems aren't special.
They don't get any help because they don't have the right kind of skin.
It's just purely racist.
It's violent and it's racist.
Now, again, I think by and large, most of the members, most of the protesters have something like good intentions, but they have joined on to a violent, racist organization without realizing it.
Speaking of that, let's talk about the president's speech, which is being called racist and divisive.
Those of you who watched the speech last night, Give me your opinions.
There's a little time lag in the comments.
But your opinion. Was the president's speech unifying?
Or was it racist and divisive?
Go. What is your opinions?
And then I'll tell you mine.
By the way, I do plan to have surgery someday.
If the coronavirus doesn't keep delaying it, I'll get my sinuses fixed.
Alright, so I'm looking at your comments coming in.
I guess it's going to take a little while for them to come in.
Here's what I think. If the president wanted to be unifying, it wouldn't have sounded anything like that.
So I don't think it was a unifying speech or even close to anything like that.
Did anybody think that was unifying?
So he decided not to tell jokes and he played it seriously.
He talked about America and he talked about, you know, we're all Americans, etc.
So there were definitely things he said that you could identify as attempts at unification.
But here's the thing.
If the president—so I'm looking—okay, comments are coming in now.
Good, good. Somebody says dark.
Somebody says best.
Truth. Somebody says low energy.
I will agree with low energy.
It looked low energy to the point where he looked really tired, actually.
Some people saying it's very unifying, patriotic.
Somebody said too mild, which is not divisive enough, I guess.
Uplifting and unifying, unifying, unifying, unifying.
All right, here's what you all got wrong, unfortunately.
All of those of you who are saying that it was unifying, I hate to break it to you.
I hate to break it to you.
That might be the least unifying speech I've ever seen in my whole fucking life.
Let me tell you why.
If this isn't obvious to you, you really haven't been listening to the protesters.
If you have this many protests, if this many people are protesting, at the very least you ought to listen to them.
You don't have to agree.
You don't have to agree.
But I'm starting to think you haven't even listened to them because here's why this was the least unifying speech of all time.
That's saying too much.
It wasn't unifying. Here's why.
The President talked about all of us appreciating our great history and our shared heritage.
How does that sound to you?
Let's say, for example, you're watching this Periscope.
There's a statistical chance that you might be white and a Trump supporter.
How does it sound to your ear when you hear you'd like everybody to share and honor our heroes and our shared cultural history?
How does that feel?
Unifying, right? You're like, yeah, our shared history.
We're Americans. Let's revel in our shared history.
Okay, here's what's wrong with that.
A lot of the history was people being slaved.
How in the world are black Americans supposed to look at the history of the United States and say, yeah, that looks good.
Let me buy into that shared heritage where my great, great, great whatever was a slave.
How in the world Is that unifying in the context of protests with Black Lives Matter, the statues coming down, the legacy of slavery?
The room is about slavery.
Slavery is like the biggest topic in the news right now.
It's on the top of minds.
And the president said, let's celebrate our shared history.
Well, the shared history is some people doing well and some people slaves.
How in the world are the slaves, you know, the people who descended from slaves or have any connection to it, how in the world are they supposed to hear that speech and hear words like heritage and culture and saying, yeah, let's honor some of that stuff where my people were slaves.
Or let's honor that part where the Native Americans were slaughtered to get their land.
How in the world is that unifying?
I would say that that speech was an attempt to be not unifying, in my opinion.
In my opinion, it was written with the intention Of being more for the base.
Now, did the base like it?
Yeah, they did. So I was wondering how the base was responding.
And they were responding very well because the base has a gigantic blind spot.
You know you do.
Not every single person, obviously.
But the base has a gigantic blind spot, which is history...
It's not so kind to a lot of people who live in this country and should feel good about it just the way you feel good about it if you do.
So I would say that a unifying speech would have directly referenced that and would have directly acknowledged that And something would have looked more like, you know, let's appreciate more, blah, blah, blah.
Now, here's what I like that he did.
He did mention the heroes of our history, and he quite pointedly mixed in a lot of African American heroes with the other heroes.
But did that make everybody happy?
No. Because there was no LGBTQ in that list.
I don't even know if there was a woman in the list, was there?
There might have been one. Was there maybe one woman in the list of American heroes?
So you can't really satisfy people with, hey, we'll throw in some statues for you guys, too, to show that everybody's equal.
We'll give you some statues.
Because the group that didn't get any statues is going to say, um, ah, it's great that white people and black people have statues, but how about me?
So There's no winning.
So did the president take the most politically advantageous approach, which is pushing back on the statue people, which is base wanted, using words like Culture and heritage which sound racist to half the country, but to his base just sounds like common sense.
And you genuinely don't hear it.
I think it is legitimately true that people on the right just don't hear that.
They don't hear it as racist.
But it's because you haven't lived anybody else's life.
Everybody else has the same problem.
It's not a problem on the right.
It's a problem that nobody really knows what anybody else is feeling or thinking.
All right, so my opinion is that the speech might have been good for his base, which was important, so maybe it was politically correct.
In terms of unifying, I would say use the words that you know won't unify.
So if you intentionally put into a written speech Words that are guaranteed to not unify.
You can't really say it was an attempt.
It wasn't really an attempt to unify.
Oh, so somebody's saying that there were some women in his list, several of them.
Ella Fitzgerald, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman.
Thank you. Clara Barton.
Oh, thank you. Okay.
So when I was hearing the list, I was not taking note of them.
Dolly Madison, was she on the list?
All right. Somebody says, statues are idols used for mind control.
I agree with that.
Statues are a form of mind control, just as the history of the country is, just as the Pledge of Allegiance, just as the flag is.
So all of our symbols have utility.
We use symbols because they do something.
They have a function.
It's a tool. It programs people to think a certain way.
That's why we do it. So the president suggested building a special garden in which statues would be, but he didn't say if we would be moving statues, and he didn't say, are we building some extra statues to those other people he mentioned?
So there's some questions to be answered, but that wasn't a bad idea.
I think on the right, people were pretty happy with the idea of putting them in a special place where you've got better context.
Yeah, so I would say the president did a good job from the perspective of his base.
He did nothing to make the left move toward him, but maybe that doesn't matter.
Because maybe you can't move the other side toward you, so maybe it doesn't matter.
But here's the takeaway.
I believe the left is afraid of the president's framing of them as dangerous, basically dangerous racist hate groups.
So that does seem to be the most productive attack, the one they worry about the most, and there's plenty of evidence to make that case, so it's very dangerous.
Everything is a form of mind control, somebody says with a smiley face.
That's true. Everything does impact the way you think.
Your environment does that.
All right. Professors are indoctrinating kids with mind control.
Yeah, I think so.
I think that's a fair thing to say.
Did you see, I tweeted this around, I mentioned this, there actually is a national effort to build a national bike paths around the country so that you could bicycle from one side of the country to the other and it would be a touristy thing to do.
So that's actually underway.
I tweeted that the other day.
Amazing. Alright.
Somebody says, dumbest idea I've ever heard.
I don't know if you're talking about the garden full of statues or not.
Alright, that's all I got.
I will talk to you tomorrow.
Export Selection